RAILROADING RADIN

Magistrate Henry Pitman on the prowl!!

Is AUSA Stephanie Lake a tool of Michael Ferrara?
Card image cap

Magistrate Henry Pitman's  scam court ?

Lidya Maria Radin. A person like any other, save for the circumstances of her prosecution by the Southern District of New York and what appears to be a Soviet era quality show trial where judge Pitman avoids stating that his court follows the US Constitution, witnesses who are not allowed to be asked if they have read, let alone studied, the US Constitution which they have sworn an oath to support, uphold and defend and demanding a probable cause hearing or a simple review of probable cause gets one taken away by US Marshalls and held in a room while the judge debates how to screw you if you won't participate.

Yeah, I know, standard belief is that if one is being prosecuted, one is guilty. But this long, twisted repetitive stripping of a defendant of her rights ought to have everyone worried, scared and angry.

It has happened to Lidya Radin (charged with entering an public elevator after a hearing to which she was not a litigant and charged with attempting to enter the clerk of courts office in the SDNY).

It has happened to Jason Berg (tackled at full tilt outside Newark Courthouse for taking a picture of a car.)

It has happened to Louis Mumford (telling a judge that as his client was acquitted, his client was free to go).

It has happened to me, Eric Richmond (arrested for reporting crimes (felonies) by the Second Circuit to a Federal Judge).

It could happen to you. Make that it will happen to some of you.

Take heed now and see the inner workings of a system where no one even bothers to check the checker, watch the watchers or judge the judgers.

Especially when they run a scam based on public indifference, like Magistrate Henry Pitman.

Card image cap

Was this an arrest?

On January 28, 2016 this is Lidya Radin.   Face down, arm twisted behind her back, about to be kneed in the back and cuffed by former NYPD officer Frank Pena.

The AUSA prosecuting Lidya for that event (Stephanie Lake, granddaughter of Mayor Lindsay) opposed Lidya Radin's motion to dismiss the charges alleging that the government had failed to follow the due process protocols subsequent to any arrest without a warrant by stating in her opposition papers, "As an initial matter, the defendant at no time was placed under arrest".

Those are quite the lawyer-ly weasel words by AUSA Stephanie Lake.

It's as if Stephanie Lake is not capable of comprehending that arrest can and does occur absent the words "I am placing you under arrest..."

In fact, any detention by officer be they Police, Homeland Security, FBI, DEA, ATF or Court Security Officer for anything more than purposes of identification with a quick release upon determining identity, IS AN ARREST.

Maybe AUSA Stephanie Lake should have read this treatise at Stanford (http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1322&context=vlr).

The Magistrate Judge presiding over this fiasco, Henry Pitman, denied the pre-trial motion of Ms. Radin stating "At no time was defendant placed under arrest." which clearly took the words of AUSA Lake over the defendant.

And, absent any video in the record, that's all there was, the word of the Government against the accused.

In an innocent until proven guilty process, an honest judge would have ordered an hearing to get to the truth, was Ms. Radin placed under arrest or not.

But Magistrate Judge Henry Pitman is no honest judge (more on that later).  Thus an employee of the government took the word of an AUSA who is also an employee of the government over the accused.  Nicely played Pitman.

More importantly, Stephanie Lake filed that opposition before she interviewed the Officer with his knee in Lidya's back (wherin he states that he placed Ms. Radin under arrest) and before that officer testified under oath that he had placed Ms. Radin under arrest.

Card image cap

Arrest without a warrant

There you have it.  On January 10. 2017 Lidya Radin alleged in Docket Number 21 of 16-CR-528 that she had been arrested without.

Stephanie Lake said, in response on January 19, 2017 in Docket #27:

"As an initial matter, the defendant at no time was placed under arrest".

Lidya was tackled/cuffed (but apparently not arrested) on January 28, 2016. Yeah, right.

If we give AUSA Stephanie Lake the benefit of the doubt that she did not know that Ms. Radin was arrested on January 28, 2016 when Ms. Radin filed the motion in question on January 10, 2017, one would think that,at a minimum, AUSA Stephanie Lake would watch the video.  Here it is on youtube at :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1fxjPK65G0&t=2m7s

Now, if AUSA Stephanie Lake ever thought that is not an arrest she is a stain on the legal profession and an inveterate LIAR.

That AUSA Stephanie Lake could make such a statement with watching the video (no doubt tackling and cuffing is an arrest) or without watching the video (failure to to the de minimus research to preserve a defendant's rights) speak loudly of how far Mayor Lindsay's grand daughter has fallen from the high moral ground her grandfather held despite his shortcomings as mayor of an impossible city. 

Card image cap

AUSA Stephanie Lake fails to correct.

Despite the video that AUSA Stephanie Lake could have and should have reviewed before saying that Ms. Radin was never placed under an arrest that triggered deadlines the Government failed to meet, evidence percolated up prior to trial to disprove the statements of AUSA Stephanie Lake.

 AUSA Stephanie Lake's own interview notes with the "arresting officer" Frank Pena  show that, prior to trial, AUSA Stephanie Lake was aware that Court Security Officer Frank Pena had placed Ms. Radin under arrest.

At that point, AUSA Lake was legally, morally and ethically required to report to Magistrate Judge Pitman that her statements in opposition to Ms. Radin's allegation of being placed under arrest that were the basis of Magistrate Pitman's denial of Ms. Radin'sotion WERE IN ERROR.

Had AUSA Stephanie Lake done this, trial would not have occurred and the government would have been spared the cost of the trial.

Card image cap

AUSA Stephanie Lake / Magistrate Pitman  Fail Again!

If the pretrial notes weren't enough, the same Court Security Officer Frank Pena took the stand during and said, under penalty of perjury, that he had placed Ms. Radin under arrest.

At that point, AUSA Lake was legally, morally and ethically required to report to Magistrate Judge Pitman that her statements in opposition to Ms. Radin's allegation of being placed under arrest that were the basis of Magistrate Pitman's denial of Ms. Radin's motion WERE IN ERROR.

Had AUSA Stephanie Lake done this, trial would not have occurred and the government would have been spared the cost of the trial and Ms. Radin would not be forced to attend a sentencing hearing on Monday October 16, 2017.

SHAME ON AUSA STEPHANIE LAKE!.

In addition at that very same point, Magistrate Judge Pitman, whose basis for denying Ms. Radin's motion, was legally, morally and ethically required to vacate his decision denying Ms. Radin's motion as his decision was clearly based on the now thoroughly discredited statement by AUSA Stephanie Lake.

Had Magistrate Pitman done this, trial would not have continued and the government would have been spared the cost of the trial and Ms. Radin would not be forced to attend a sentencing hearing on Monday October 16, 2017.

SHAME ON MAGISTRATE JUDGE PITMAN!

Card image cap

Magistrate Henry Pitman Fails Again!

In federal court pretrial motions are required to be ruled on, well, pretrial.

Rule 12: Pleadings and Pretrial Motions: The court must decide every pretrial motion before trial unless it finds good cause to defer a ruling. The court must not defer ruling on a pretrial motion if the deferral will adversely affect a party's right to appeal. When factual issues are involved in deciding a motion, the court must state its essential findings on the record.

Looks like Ms. Radin made a pretrial motion asserting a common law right to be prosecuted under a name of her own choosing ( January 23, 2017 Docket #44).

Absent ruling pretrial on that pretrial Docket Item demanding that the court address Ms. Radin as she wishes to be addressed as is her common law right, the court lost jurisdiction as the court loses jurisdiction when they violate the law.

Even if the court believes her motion is hooey, the court still must rule on it pretrial.  Otherwise the court lost any power it had by violating the law.

Don't believe me?

United States v. Lee 106 U.S. 196 (1882) says:

"No man in this country is so high that he is above the law. No officer of the law may set that law at defiance with impunity. All the officers of the government, from the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law and are bound to obey it. It is the only supreme power in our system of government, and every man who by accepting office participates in its functions is only the more strongly bound to submit to that supremacy and to observe the limitations which it imposes upon the exercise of the authority which it gives."

Card image cap

More Pitman Lake Legal Hooey!

Working on it.  We figure there are between 20 and 30 of these things in this case.  Malfeaeance all around!

(the really juicy one is the attempt to hide the fact that the US Government does not own 500 Pearl, the SDNY Courthouse!)